The promo is out for the upcoming season of Lost (video above), along with lots of other reports going around. Nothing specific here, but there are reports that the upcoming season of Lost “is definitely going to be the strangest thing that’s ever been on network television. Ever.” Reportedly Locke fans will be stunned.

Bryan Fuller, former Star Trek Voyager producer and creator of Pushing Daises, wants to produce the next Star Trek television series. Just don’t make the mistakes that Voyager made. There is hope as he said, “I told my agent and told the people of J.J. Abrams team I want to create another STAR TREK series and have an idea that I’m kicking around. I would love to return to the spirit of the old series with the colors and attitude. I loved VOYAGER and DEEP SPACE NINE, but they seem to have lost the ‘60s fun and I would love to take it back to its origin.”

The BBC has issued a press release for this year’s Children in Need show on November 14. A clip will be shown with two minutes from an upcoming Christmas Special entitled The Next Doctor. My guess is that they are announcing this to create discussion about a potential change in The Doctor, but by the end David Tennant will remain in the role, at least through the planned specials through next year.

I’ve been wondering if Kristin Bell’s character would be returning to Heroes after being fired from the Company. While there are probably too many characters and subplots going on, one thing I do like about the show is that they don’t feel the need to give every character a part every week as occurs on most television shows. Watch with Kristin reports Kristin Bell is returning in tomorrow’s episode:

Kristen Bell is back next week as Elle! It seems Elle’s powers now control her, not the other way around. She’s overcome by the electrical forces within her, and when she can’t find HRG to help her, she goes with the next best thing: Claire. Yep, next week Claire and Elle try to team up against Pinehearst—but first they have to overcome the fact that they, you know, hate each other.

Ausiello quotes Edward James Olmos as saying the conclusion of Battlestar Galactica “is like a great book. You love reading it and you want to find out what happens in the story, but you also are so sad it is ending. That’s how I feel about Battlestar. It has been a great experience for me. I don’t want it to end, but I think the ending is so strong that I am happy to have fans see it. People are going to get their minds blown.”

How I Met Your Mother was written to suggest that Sarah Chalke would be the mother in last season’s final episode in case the show was not renewed, but last week’s episode shows Ted is moving on as his wedding to Stella fell apart due to the invitation of their ex’s. Last week’s episode won’t be the last we will see of Chalke, but Ausiello does say that her last episode will air November 3.

House was out to pick up their ratings with last night’s episode, Lucky Thirteen. As House described it, Penthouse Forum met medical mysteries as we learned about Thirteen’s sex life. FOX hopes that higher ratings for House will also spill over to Fringe. I think that J.J. Abrams is going to have to advance the underlying mystery on Fringe further (or resort to lesbian sex as on House) to maintain an audience for Fringe.

We might learn more about the underlying mystery on another show. The promos for next week’s episode of Life on Mars show that it will involve Sam’s mother and give more information as to why Sam is back in the 1970’s.

Billy Piper , formerly of Doctor Who and currently staring in the second season of Secret Diary of a Call Girl on the BBC, underwent an emergency c-section last Tuesday, giving birth to Winston James Fox. On Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update last night Seth Myers announced he was working alone as Amy Poehler was busy having a baby, giving a new meaning to Live From New York and making Poehler a real Baby Mama to Archie Arnett. Poehler will be off on maternity leave but there are rumors of a guest next weekend, just prior to the election–Barack Obama.

Last night’s episode of Saturday Night Live was guest hosted by John Hamm, Don Draper of Mad Men, who did some of the rare non-political skits on SNL this year which were actually amusing. The first video shows a skit entitled Two A-Holes Go An Ad Agency In The 1960s, and includes guest appearances by Elizabeth Moss and John Slattery. The second clip shows Don Draper’s Guide to Picking Up Women:

Mad Men has been picked up for a third season on AMC. In other renewal news,Dexter, currently in its third season on Showtime, has been renewed for two additional seasons.

John McCain is trailing in the polls with nine days left. To get back in the race he needs to dominate as many news cycles as possible. Looking ahead, Obama will be on three broadcast networks during prime time later in the week, probably denying McCain at least one additional day to gain ground. Today might have been McCain’s best chance for a positive day, appearing on both Meet the Press and CNN’s Late Edition. I already commented on these interviews here, with McCain failing to say anything to help his campaign. Making matters worse, the next big story after Palin’s spending on clothes has become the internal friction within the campaign.

Being a maverick is one thing, but going rogue is entirely different. It doesn’t help McCain to have quotes like this coming out from the campaign:

“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” said this McCain adviser. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

“Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”

If other women respond to this like Campbell Brown did on Late Edition today, the comment might further hurt McCain’s chances with the PUMA vote. Brown was offended by the use of the word diva:

Well, it’s the word “diva.” It’s a word that is never applied to men. It’s generally applied to a woman to describe an overly ambitious woman. And there may be many things you can say about Sarah Palin regarding her qualifications or experience, but she’s no more ambitious than any other politician, certainly not Joe Biden or any other vice presidential candidate in history.

So, I think going to that level and using that word in particular says more about the person on the McCain campaign who used it and the way this is devolved into sort of low-level name-calling than it does anything about Sarah Palin.

Such conflict, especially in losing campaigns, is not uncommon. Stories spread after the election how John Edwards placed his own interests in a 2008 run over the good of the 2004 ticket, but Kerry’s frustration with Edwards was kept quiet until after the vote to avoid further harming their chances.

Like the silly stories I mentioned yesterday on the faked attack and McCain’s brother, the friction between McCain and Palin is not something to base one’s vote on, but having the news be dominated by such stories does make it more difficult for McCain to catch up to Obama. I’m also not sure that having this come out now helps Palin’s already questionable hopes for the nomination in 2012.

“I would have vetoed literally every spending bill, even those that I had voted for, if I were president of the United States…”

This is even more ridiculous than John Kerry’s quote on voting for an appropriation before he voted against it. In Kerry’s case he was talking about two different bills and it made sense for him to change his vote as there were significant changes in where the money was coming from in the second bill which he voted against. McCain is talking about vetoing bills he actually voted for. He did have the opportunity to vote against them.

John McCain was also interviewed on Meet the Press today. He repeated the same claims which have been debunked many times about Obama’s tax plans and continues to suggest that Obama is a socialist. This makes me wonder if McCain even knows what socialism really means. Obama has no plans which come remotely close to the state taking over the means of production or eliminating private business. McCain tries to equate taxation with socialism, but that hardly flies when Obama is calling for lower taxes on most people than John McCain is, and when even those who will see a tax increase would still be paying lower taxes than they were under Ronald Reagan.

The Anchorage Daily News has endorsed Barack Obama. Despite their interest in having their governor on the ticket they acknowledge:

…few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

The primary reason for endorsing Obama was based upon the economy:

Gov. Palin’s nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency — but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis — erratic is a kind description — shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn’t do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown’s root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered.

I’ve reported on many libertarians and conservatives who are backing Barack Obama. The Economist has also noticed this trend. Here is a portion of a recent article on The Rise of the Obamacons:

The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush’s big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended “war on terror”, and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing “libertarians for Obama” web sites. CaféPress is even offering a “libertarian for Obama” lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr Obama can free America from the grip of the “zombies” who now run the Republican Party.

But the army has many other brigades, too: repentant neocons such as Francis Fukuyama, legal scholars such as Douglas Kmiec, and conservative talk-show hosts such as Michael Smerconish. And it is picking up unexpected new recruits as the campaign approaches its denouement. Many disillusioned Republicans hoped that Mr McCain would provide a compass for a party that has lost its way, but now feel that the compass has gone haywire. Kenneth Adelman, who once described the invasion of Iraq as a “cakewalk”, decided this week to vote for Mr Obama mainly because he regards Sarah Palin as “not close to being acceptable in high office”.

The rise of the Obamacons is more than a reaction against Mr Bush’s remodelling of the Republican Party and Mr McCain’s desperation: there were plenty of disillusioned Republicans in 2004 who did not warm to John Kerry. It is also a positive verdict on Mr Obama. For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.

Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

How much do these Obamacons matter? More than Mr McCain would like to think. The Obamacons are manifestations of a deeper turmoil in the Republican rank-and-file, as the old coalition of small-government activists, social conservatives and business Republicans falls apart. They also influence opinion. This is obvious in the case of Mr Powell: Mr Obama is making liberal use of his endorsement to refute the latest Republican criticism that he is a “socialist”. But it is also true of lesser-known scribblers. At least 27 newspapers that backed Mr Bush in 2004 have endorsed Mr Obama.

Moreover, the revolt of the intellectuals is coinciding with a migration of culturally conservative voters—particularly white working-class voters—into Obamaland. Mr Obama is now level-pegging or leading among swing-groups such as Catholics and working-class whites. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.

It is not necessary to have such endorsements to refute the ridiculous claims that Obama is a socialist, but they do help discredit the attacks. The Republican claims that Obama is a socialist are based upon distorting both Obama’s tax plans and a statement by Obama. When Obama spoke of putting more money in the hands of more people he wasn’t referring to any Marxist schemes. He was talking about allowing the free market to work so that more people can earn money, rather than using the government as Republicans do to enrich a small number. If we accept the Republican logic that Obama’s tax plans are socialist for providing assistance to those the bottom, then we’d also have to consider Milton Friedman a socialist for advocating the negative income tax.